From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 4 22:29:26 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B0110656B0; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 22:29:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56D18FC0C; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 22:29:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D5D446B03; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B91268A01F; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:29:25 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Andriy Gapon Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:29:18 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (FreeBSD/7.2-CBSD-20100120; KDE/4.3.1; amd64; ; ) References: <4B698DD8.4010404@icyb.net.ua> <201002041657.52232.jhb@freebsd.org> <4B6B4689.4020708@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4B6B4689.4020708@icyb.net.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002041729.18714.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:29:25 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.1 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: acpi_cpu: _PDC vs _OSC X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:29:27 -0000 On Thursday 04 February 2010 5:13:29 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 04/02/2010 23:57 John Baldwin said the following: > > On Thursday 04 February 2010 2:42:47 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> - * TODO: evaluate failure of _OSC. > >> + * On some systems evaluation of _OSC/_PDC dynamically > >> + * loads the _PSS and other methods. > >> */ > > > > I would only say _OSC here. I don't think we've seen any systems that load > > something when _PDC is invoked, only when _OSC is invoked. > > Actually, I think that the way it's written should be OK. > I've seen a few DSDTs where both are present and both do the same thing. > E.g.: > > Scope (\_PR.CPU0) > { > Name (HI0, Zero) > Name (HC0, Zero) > Method (_PDC, 1, NotSerialized) > { > Store (CPDC (Arg0), Local0) > GCAP (Local0) > Return (Local0) > } > > Method (_OSC, 4, NotSerialized) > { > Store (COSC (Arg0, Arg1, Arg2, Arg3), Local0) > GCAP (Local0) > Return (Local0) > } > ... > > Looks like CPDC is "Convert _PDC" and COSC is "Convert _OSC" and GCAP is "G... > capabilities", whatever "G..." could mean. But is GCAP loading an additional SSDT? That is what the "loading something" refers to and I think we've only observed that occurring with _OSC. I'd rather we only document unexpected quirks that someone has actually reported and not assume that just because an _OSC method on some box did it, there's bound to be a _PDC method on some other box that does it. In truth, the comment is probably not needed now anyway since this will always do _OSC first. -- John Baldwin